It's not always easy for a company to just up and release the source code to their games, as many aspects of it may be entrenched in proprietary licensing. Physics, sound, rendering engine, etc. Entire sections of the code that can't be released, which makes much of the game what it is. It's hard to convince a company to spend resources going through their old source code, plucking out the code that can be released, and then letting it go. It might give them public good will, but it costs them money and the return could end up being very little.
And yes, if you create it expressly and soley for a criminal purpose, but "just save it on your own computer" it should be a crime. Do you really believe they should wait until it does damage to arrest (e.g., steals credit card info and uses, spams a ton of crap)?
So we should be arresting people for thought crimes now? Saving it to your computer does not show intent to commit a crime any more than buying a new set of steak knives shows intent to murder your wife for cheating on you with the gardener.
Bullshit. Were you reading the same teardown article everyone else is? Not every internal part could be sourced to the US (Not that Google never claimed it was, the article even points this out) but the majority was, plus it was assembled in the US. That meets any requirements to use the term "Made in the USA" according to the FTC.
I think the whoosh should go to you, good sir. First of all, we're talking about a FOSS generalization. Using non-FOSS games as an example to break that generalization is worthless to the discussion. Secondly, games do not need high graphical fidelity to look and feel polished. Creating a crappy presentation, throwing your arms up in the air and saying "graphics aren't important" is just a terrible excuse for being lazy. There are many things that can be done to make your presentation shine even if you can't muster better assets.
As for Dwarf Fortress -- Its presentation is very polished, despite the design choice not to use graphics. It was a bad example to make his point
Dwarf Fortress isn't open source. Picking out a few extreme examples of graphically inferior games that have a great hook that doesn't need graphics doesn't really discredit the GPs statement. It is not an unfair generalization to make that FOSS games generally lack polish and suffer as a result, either graphically or technically. This is of course mostly because they are a labor of love and not profit, but that fact doesn't change anything in the end.
The dull flat white interface to replace Aero is pretty terrible for a whole different set of reasons. I'd sooner switch to Windows Classic and just deal with the task bar looking absolutely dreadful.
It's not really a donation. You're paying a fee for the precompiled binary. I don't know why people use the word "donation" when it's essentially a mandatory fee. Maybe it just sounds nicer?
Before someone jumps on my case and implies "compiling it yourself gives you the same thing" -- even if it did create a 1:1 copy compiling it yourself, you're still paying a fee for the convenience of having the compilation done for you.
Nothing about it sounds like a donation. A donation is something you give without consideration of something in return. When I hear things like this, I can't shake the mental image of some sleazy infomercial using fancy wordplay to try to score extra sales.
Also, I forgot to add that there are already blacklists for known RIAA/MPAA IP ranges. Both entities frequently work around it in a game of cat and mouse that neither side will ever win or lose.
So your big plan is to have an option where users outside the US can leech from US users, but not share with them? You really think that should be a legitimate option in torrent software?
For a supposedly 13 year old, the bot has a rather unreasonable vocabulary, unless the kid grew up reading dictionaries and never touched the internet once to pick up any related bad habits (shorthand, meme recital, etc)
Except that it's not even close to that. The hearing impaired are more than welcome to use the site and access its content. They're just incapable of getting the most out of it, much like someone who is legally blind won't get the most out of the content on Netflix. Much of the content is already CC'd and Netflix is actively working on making it more so. Should Netflix also be forced to include descriptive narration as well for all of it's content despite the costs of personally creating it?
That isn't remotely comparable to denying business to someone based on the color of their skin.
The stupid thing is that Netflix is already making an effort to spend their company time and money captioning movies which aren't captioned by content creators. That this suit even came up feels in bad faith. Netflix is working on getting as many videos captioned as they can. They can't caption them all over night.
Netflix should not have to remove all the videos which don't have CC. That just hurts everyone for no benefit to anyone, just in spite of those who can hear, so the hearing impaired don't feel left out.
At which point Netflix would then be obligated to refuse to provide those pieces of content until the creators provide the subtitles, at which point the creators would be forced to provide the subtitles. More to the point, these rules would apply to all similar services, presumably, so if the content providers don't solve the problem, they'll lose most of their digital distribution.
I think you overestimate how much studios "need" to be on Netflix. You're punishing Netflix more than you're punishing movie studios with this.
And here is what bothers me the most... "Valve will call this service Steam for Schools, an education version of the Steam client that allows administrators to limit what its users can access."
Since when is LIMITING access to information beneficial to learning?
That is what bothers you the most? You put out this long winded post about how evil it all is, and the fact that Steam for Schools lets the individual school administrators specifically whitelist which applications they want to let their students install/use is what bothers you the most?
Well, yeah. When Q was introduced, his power and distaste for the human race was made very apparent. By the end of the trial, he was intrigued by Picard, and things were never the same between them. He may have been a "villainous" character as an introduction, but that's often how rivals are created.
I was going to reply with exactly this. Q was never a villain. Anyone with that impression doesn't understand the meaning of the character. If he was anything, he was more of a friendly rival to Picard. The things Picard did perplexed Q, who until that time had assumed the human race was nothing but a degenerate lot. So he tested the Enterprise D, and more specifically Picard on many occasions. However Picard always managed to pull through to let Q know that humanity, while inferior and with much to learn, couldn't be counted out just yet.
If my box prevented me from fast forwarding commercials, I would never pay for the DVR service. I can only barely justify it if I'm able to commercial skip.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not always easy for a company to just up and release the source code to their games, as many aspects of it may be entrenched in proprietary licensing. Physics, sound, rendering engine, etc. Entire sections of the code that can't be released, which makes much of the game what it is. It's hard to convince a company to spend resources going through their old source code, plucking out the code that can be released, and then letting it go. It might give them public good will, but it costs them money and the return could end up being very little.
And yes, if you create it expressly and soley for a criminal purpose, but "just save it on your own computer" it should be a crime. Do you really believe they should wait until it does damage to arrest (e.g., steals credit card info and uses, spams a ton of crap)?
So we should be arresting people for thought crimes now? Saving it to your computer does not show intent to commit a crime any more than buying a new set of steak knives shows intent to murder your wife for cheating on you with the gardener.
Bullshit. Were you reading the same teardown article everyone else is? Not every internal part could be sourced to the US (Not that Google never claimed it was, the article even points this out) but the majority was, plus it was assembled in the US. That meets any requirements to use the term "Made in the USA" according to the FTC.
I think the whoosh should go to you, good sir. First of all, we're talking about a FOSS generalization. Using non-FOSS games as an example to break that generalization is worthless to the discussion. Secondly, games do not need high graphical fidelity to look and feel polished. Creating a crappy presentation, throwing your arms up in the air and saying "graphics aren't important" is just a terrible excuse for being lazy. There are many things that can be done to make your presentation shine even if you can't muster better assets.
As for Dwarf Fortress -- Its presentation is very polished, despite the design choice not to use graphics. It was a bad example to make his point
Dwarf Fortress isn't open source. Picking out a few extreme examples of graphically inferior games that have a great hook that doesn't need graphics doesn't really discredit the GPs statement. It is not an unfair generalization to make that FOSS games generally lack polish and suffer as a result, either graphically or technically. This is of course mostly because they are a labor of love and not profit, but that fact doesn't change anything in the end.
The dull flat white interface to replace Aero is pretty terrible for a whole different set of reasons. I'd sooner switch to Windows Classic and just deal with the task bar looking absolutely dreadful.
It's not really a donation. You're paying a fee for the precompiled binary. I don't know why people use the word "donation" when it's essentially a mandatory fee. Maybe it just sounds nicer?
Before someone jumps on my case and implies "compiling it yourself gives you the same thing" -- even if it did create a 1:1 copy compiling it yourself, you're still paying a fee for the convenience of having the compilation done for you.
Nothing about it sounds like a donation. A donation is something you give without consideration of something in return. When I hear things like this, I can't shake the mental image of some sleazy infomercial using fancy wordplay to try to score extra sales.
This isn't ask. The end comment is just an unnecessary addition to stir discussion.
Also, I forgot to add that there are already blacklists for known RIAA/MPAA IP ranges. Both entities frequently work around it in a game of cat and mouse that neither side will ever win or lose.
So your big plan is to have an option where users outside the US can leech from US users, but not share with them? You really think that should be a legitimate option in torrent software?
For a supposedly 13 year old, the bot has a rather unreasonable vocabulary, unless the kid grew up reading dictionaries and never touched the internet once to pick up any related bad habits (shorthand, meme recital, etc)
Except that it's not even close to that. The hearing impaired are more than welcome to use the site and access its content. They're just incapable of getting the most out of it, much like someone who is legally blind won't get the most out of the content on Netflix. Much of the content is already CC'd and Netflix is actively working on making it more so. Should Netflix also be forced to include descriptive narration as well for all of it's content despite the costs of personally creating it?
That isn't remotely comparable to denying business to someone based on the color of their skin.
The stupid thing is that Netflix is already making an effort to spend their company time and money captioning movies which aren't captioned by content creators. That this suit even came up feels in bad faith. Netflix is working on getting as many videos captioned as they can. They can't caption them all over night.
Netflix should not have to remove all the videos which don't have CC. That just hurts everyone for no benefit to anyone, just in spite of those who can hear, so the hearing impaired don't feel left out.
At which point Netflix would then be obligated to refuse to provide those pieces of content until the creators provide the subtitles, at which point the creators would be forced to provide the subtitles. More to the point, these rules would apply to all similar services, presumably, so if the content providers don't solve the problem, they'll lose most of their digital distribution.
I think you overestimate how much studios "need" to be on Netflix. You're punishing Netflix more than you're punishing movie studios with this.
Wow, that is my favorite news reporter from now on. Shame he doesn't work in San Diego.
Not even.
OEMs will pre-install LibreOffice on machines as long as LibreOffice pays them to do it. Which will never happen.
Yikes. Seriously? I don't even know where to start with this post.
Manga doesn't mean child rape porn.
I'm genuinely curious; why do you consider English to be the Windows 95 of languages? What language do you think the world should "standardize" on?
And here is what bothers me the most...
"Valve will call this service Steam for Schools, an education version of the Steam client that allows administrators to limit what its users can access."
Since when is LIMITING access to information beneficial to learning?
That is what bothers you the most? You put out this long winded post about how evil it all is, and the fact that Steam for Schools lets the individual school administrators specifically whitelist which applications they want to let their students install/use is what bothers you the most?
Really?
Yeah! I mean nearly all child-facing machines in schools run Linux, so what would even be the point!?
Right?
Right?
Oh.
Well, yeah. When Q was introduced, his power and distaste for the human race was made very apparent. By the end of the trial, he was intrigued by Picard, and things were never the same between them. He may have been a "villainous" character as an introduction, but that's often how rivals are created.
I was going to reply with exactly this. Q was never a villain. Anyone with that impression doesn't understand the meaning of the character. If he was anything, he was more of a friendly rival to Picard. The things Picard did perplexed Q, who until that time had assumed the human race was nothing but a degenerate lot. So he tested the Enterprise D, and more specifically Picard on many occasions. However Picard always managed to pull through to let Q know that humanity, while inferior and with much to learn, couldn't be counted out just yet.
If my box prevented me from fast forwarding commercials, I would never pay for the DVR service. I can only barely justify it if I'm able to commercial skip.